Q&A With Obama On Foreign Policy

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Braznor
Obama would prove to be a good domestic president with a disastrous foreign policy. Remember folks, the path to hell is paved with good intentions and that saying holds true for both Bush and as well, Obama.

so can you be more specific or are you just padding your post count??

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Braznor
Obama would prove to be a good domestic president with a disastrous foreign policy. Remember folks, the path to hell is paved with good intentions and that saying holds true for both Bush and as well, Obama.

so can you be more specific or are you just padding your post count??

I need not pad my post count here of all places. i.e the garbage can of AT 😛

Anyway, Obama's assertion of dialogue with muslim nations, people are all fine, but it is at best going to have the same effect as before i.e Zero or at worst, an increase in terror because of misdirected efforts against terrorism (a folly Bush is guilty off with his Iraq debacle)

Plus if Obama pulls the plug on the troops, wave Middle East goodbye. The tide of Islamism which shall sweep Asia right from Turkey to Pakistan will make Iraq today seem like a Sunday school picnic. The fall is inevitable, after all Americans will themselves set the bad example of running.

Don't get me wrong. But the world is gonna go to hell pretty soon.

 

[naddicott]

I supported the intelligence reform that led to the current structure. I would improve the performance of the intelligence community in several ways. First, I have been troubled by both the politicization of intelligence in this administration, and the turnover at the top of our intelligence agencies. So I will make the Director of National Intelligence an official with a fixed term -- like the Chairman of the Federal Reserve -- to foster consistency and integrity in the office of the DNI. Second, I will make sure we go beyond reorganizing boxes on an organizational chart, so that we are strengthening our capabilities. To support information-sharing, I will pursue technology that allows us to efficiently collect and share information within and across our intelligence agencies. To prevent group-think, I will institutionalize the practice of developing competitive assessments of critical threats and strengthen our methodologies of analysis.

The bolded part is the big upgrade, IMO. Even if Obama is Naive and wrong on some foreign policy points based on the information available to him as a Senator, his insistence on hearing multiple perspectives from the intelligence community as standard practice is a big step towards more competent executive decision making. The biggest failing of the Bush administration, in my opinion, is a disturbing and consistent pattern of browbeating of multiple sectors of government into reporting only what the administration pre-determined they wanted to hear and squelching dissenting voices.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Braznor
Plus if Obama pulls the plug on the troops, wave Middle East goodbye. The tide of Islamism which shall sweep Asia right from Turkey to Pakistan will make Iraq today seem like a Sunday school picnic.

We made similar predictions in the last unpopular war we fought: Vietnam.

Except back then, we heard the "tide of Communism" would sweep across Asia if we pulled out of Vietnam.

The theory is still as laughable when applied to "Islamism" (whatever that is). It just won't happen. Iran and Saudi Arabia have a tight lid on their people. Smaller Middle Eastern nations are very modern/western (Kuwait, UAE). Iraq is a sectarian problem. Afghanistan and northern Pakistan are really the only two problem areas we need to focus on, but the problems won't expand beyond their borders.

Don't get me wrong. But the world is gonna go to hell pretty soon.

If it does, the US will undoubtedly be the instigator. Something like bombing Iran over non-existent WMDs could probably light the powder-keg.

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: jpeyton


We made similar predictions in the last unpopular war we fought: Vietnam.

Except back then, we heard the "tide of Communism" would sweep across Asia if we pulled out of Vietnam.

The theory is still as laughable when applied to "Islamism" (whatever that is). It just won't happen. Iran and Saudi Arabia have a tight lid on their people. Smaller Middle Eastern nations are very modern/western (Kuwait, UAE). Iraq is a sectarian problem. Afghanistan and northern Pakistan are really the only two problem areas we need to focus on, but the problems won't expand beyond their borders.

Yes, the domino effect failed for Communism. That was because Communism was a political ideology, not a quasi religious one like Islamism. Communism gained and fell from grace within a century, but Islamism as it has spread across the world today has evolved over a millennium of history to becoming the ever expansionist ideology remaining invincible. The prime reason for the domino effect not working for Communism is because there were no base reasons underlying the way the dominoes fall i.e. nothing for the fall to base itself on except another ideology and that too, a foreign one. So just because one group of madmen fell for the madness, there was no good reason for anyone else to do so and therefore no domino effect.

Not the same case for Islam. Islam IS Arab Imperialism itself and forms the heart and soul of the Middle East. It provides the patterns for the dominos to fall. You shall have to be blind to ignore this. Plus factor the fear that arises when the most technologically advanced nation on Earth turns and runs from them because of Obama pulling out.

Who can stop them after that? Every crook and criminal looking to make himself a martyr in that place will give themselves for the cause of Islamism's triumph in that region. That's the way its always been. Now don't tell me your good intentions or perhaps, Obama's is going to triumph. Lol 😛

If it does, the US will undoubtedly be the instigator. Something like bombing Iran over non-existent WMDs could probably light the powder-keg.

There, your American hate shines again. Yep, America can bring about the end of the world. But remember there are worse people out there who want to do the same thing and given the chance (that America has today), they definitely will do so too.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: hellod9

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Refreshing or naive?

Why don't you actually read it before you ask such questions. Or are YOU so naive to think that you DON'T need to read anything at all?

I read it it reads like an essay by a high school student making a thesis by ignoring the course of world history.

 

[StageLeft]

How pathetic the US' foreign policy that a practical, common-sense approach to foreign policy--basically a textbook defintion, comes as a surprise to people and they think it's ridiculous.

His approach mirrors that of a cop who pulls somebody over for speeding and leaves his pistol in unless it's needed. These days the cops just walk around with the gun out looking for an excuse to use it and flex muscle.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: hellod9

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Refreshing or naive?

Why don't you actually read it before you ask such questions. Or are YOU so naive to think that you DON'T need to read anything at all?

I read it it reads like an essay by a high school student making a thesis by ignoring the course of world history.

Which history has he ignored? What are the flaws in his viewpoint?

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
How pathetic the US' foreign policy that a practical, common-sense approach to foreign policy--basically a textbook defintion, comes as a surprise to people and they think it's ridiculous.

His approach mirrors that of a cop who pulls somebody over for speeding and leaves his pistol in unless it's needed. These days the cops just walk around with the gun out looking for an excuse to use it and flex muscle.

Yet history has proven that such diplomacy has not worked with such nations like Iran and North Korea.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Skoorb
How pathetic the US' foreign policy that a practical, common-sense approach to foreign policy--basically a textbook defintion, comes as a surprise to people and they think it's ridiculous.

His approach mirrors that of a cop who pulls somebody over for speeding and leaves his pistol in unless it's needed. These days the cops just walk around with the gun out looking for an excuse to use it and flex muscle.

Yet history has proven that such diplomacy has not worked with such nations like Iran and North Korea.

Have an example or two?

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Skoorb
How pathetic the US' foreign policy that a practical, common-sense approach to foreign policy--basically a textbook defintion, comes as a surprise to people and they think it's ridiculous.

His approach mirrors that of a cop who pulls somebody over for speeding and leaves his pistol in unless it's needed. These days the cops just walk around with the gun out looking for an excuse to use it and flex muscle.

Yet history has proven that such diplomacy has not worked with such nations like Iran and North Korea.

Have an example or two?

😕

Iran and North Korea

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Refreshing or naive?

Refreshingly naive.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I fully support Obama and will vote for him. However, I think his foreign policy may be a bit pie-in-the sky. Though if this policy fails, which I imagine it will because it assumes good faith and intentions on the part of our enemies that I don't believe exists, I hope he's man enough to admit that and change that policy.

Not to mention that if it does fail those who have been pounding on the diplomacy pulpit for the last 7+ years as if it's some amazingly untried solution to all our ills will finally get a does of reality and have a cork stuffed in them in the process.

I could be wrong though. Either way. It's win-win from my pov.

Exactly, what would you do differently?

I've already explained it clearly afaik. I'm more than willing to give the diplomacy route a go on the small chance it might succeed, though I don't think it's quite as easy as that. Politics has never been that simple except in the mind of idealists who refuse to accept that machinations exist in the minds of men.

Yea because Clinton's diplomacy really worked well with North Korea.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I fully support Obama and will vote for him. However, I think his foreign policy may be a bit pie-in-the sky. Though if this policy fails, which I imagine it will because it assumes good faith and intentions on the part of our enemies that I don't believe exists, I hope he's man enough to admit that and change that policy.

Not to mention that if it does fail those who have been pounding on the diplomacy pulpit for the last 7+ years as if it's some amazingly untried solution to all our ills will finally get a does of reality and have a cork stuffed in them in the process.

I could be wrong though. Either way. It's win-win from my pov.

Exactly, what would you do differently?

I've already explained it clearly afaik. I'm more than willing to give the diplomacy route a go on the small chance it might succeed, though I don't think it's quite as easy as that. Politics has never been that simple except in the mind of idealists who refuse to accept that machinations exist in the minds of men.

Yea because Clinton's diplomacy really worked well with North Korea.

😕

Which is one of many examples and reasons that I don't think the grand solution is as simple as chanting diplomacy. Nor will diplomacy work with Iran or Syria. I'm an advocate of the Teddy Roosevelt school. Walk softly but carry a big stick.

And don't be afraid to use that stick when it's necessary either. Defeats the purpose of carrying it in the first place.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Skoorb
How pathetic the US' foreign policy that a practical, common-sense approach to foreign policy--basically a textbook defintion, comes as a surprise to people and they think it's ridiculous.

His approach mirrors that of a cop who pulls somebody over for speeding and leaves his pistol in unless it's needed. These days the cops just walk around with the gun out looking for an excuse to use it and flex muscle.

Yet history has proven that such diplomacy has not worked with such nations like Iran and North Korea.

Have an example or two?

😕

Iran and North Korea

You can't be talking about their nuclear programs can you? No, that is for peaceful purposes!

Death to Israel!

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I fully support Obama and will vote for him. However, I think his foreign policy may be a bit pie-in-the sky. Though if this policy fails, which I imagine it will because it assumes good faith and intentions on the part of our enemies that I don't believe exists, I hope he's man enough to admit that and change that policy.

Not to mention that if it does fail those who have been pounding on the diplomacy pulpit for the last 7+ years as if it's some amazingly untried solution to all our ills will finally get a does of reality and have a cork stuffed in them in the process.

I could be wrong though. Either way. It's win-win from my pov.

Exactly, what would you do differently?

I've already explained it clearly afaik. I'm more than willing to give the diplomacy route a go on the small chance it might succeed, though I don't think it's quite as easy as that. Politics has never been that simple except in the mind of idealists who refuse to accept that machinations exist in the minds of men.

Yea because Clinton's diplomacy really worked well with North Korea.

😕

Which is one of many examples and reasons that I don't think the grand solution is as simple as chanting diplomacy. Nor will diplomacy work with Iran or Syria. I'm an advocate of the Teddy Roosevelt school. Walk softly but carry a big stick.

And don't be afraid to use that stick when it's necessary either. Defeats the purpose of carrying it in the first place.

How is "Walk softly but carry a big stick" relevant to Cuba? If you lift trade sanctions against Cuba, the government officials will get richer and they will have even more resources to repress the masses (just like North Korea does). Economic incentives never make it to the people.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I fully support Obama and will vote for him. However, I think his foreign policy may be a bit pie-in-the sky. Though if this policy fails, which I imagine it will because it assumes good faith and intentions on the part of our enemies that I don't believe exists, I hope he's man enough to admit that and change that policy.

Not to mention that if it does fail those who have been pounding on the diplomacy pulpit for the last 7+ years as if it's some amazingly untried solution to all our ills will finally get a does of reality and have a cork stuffed in them in the process.

I could be wrong though. Either way. It's win-win from my pov.

Exactly, what would you do differently?

I've already explained it clearly afaik. I'm more than willing to give the diplomacy route a go on the small chance it might succeed, though I don't think it's quite as easy as that. Politics has never been that simple except in the mind of idealists who refuse to accept that machinations exist in the minds of men.

Yea because Clinton's diplomacy really worked well with North Korea.

😕

Which is one of many examples and reasons that I don't think the grand solution is as simple as chanting diplomacy. Nor will diplomacy work with Iran or Syria. I'm an advocate of the Teddy Roosevelt school. Walk softly but carry a big stick.

And don't be afraid to use that stick when it's necessary either. Defeats the purpose of carrying it in the first place.

Ahhh, "necessary."

That word seems to have a lot of meanings these days.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Refreshing or naive?

Refreshingly naive.

:thumbsup:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I fully support Obama and will vote for him. However, I think his foreign policy may be a bit pie-in-the sky. Though if this policy fails, which I imagine it will because it assumes good faith and intentions on the part of our enemies that I don't believe exists, I hope he's man enough to admit that and change that policy.

Not to mention that if it does fail those who have been pounding on the diplomacy pulpit for the last 7+ years as if it's some amazingly untried solution to all our ills will finally get a does of reality and have a cork stuffed in them in the process.

I could be wrong though. Either way. It's win-win from my pov.

Exactly, what would you do differently?

I've already explained it clearly afaik. I'm more than willing to give the diplomacy route a go on the small chance it might succeed, though I don't think it's quite as easy as that. Politics has never been that simple except in the mind of idealists who refuse to accept that machinations exist in the minds of men.

Yea because Clinton's diplomacy really worked well with North Korea.

😕

Which is one of many examples and reasons that I don't think the grand solution is as simple as chanting diplomacy. Nor will diplomacy work with Iran or Syria. I'm an advocate of the Teddy Roosevelt school. Walk softly but carry a big stick.

And don't be afraid to use that stick when it's necessary either. Defeats the purpose of carrying it in the first place.

How is "Walk softly but carry a big stick" relevant to Cuba? If you lift trade sanctions against Cuba, the government officials will get richer and they will have even more resources to repress the masses (just like North Korea does). Economic incentives never make it to the people.

In regard to Cuba, how about walking softly by gradually loosening trade restrictions based on Cuba making specific, gradual steps as well? I think it's time to start making a move. The old guard there is dying out. Let's give the new guard a chance.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I fully support Obama and will vote for him. However, I think his foreign policy may be a bit pie-in-the sky. Though if this policy fails, which I imagine it will because it assumes good faith and intentions on the part of our enemies that I don't believe exists, I hope he's man enough to admit that and change that policy.

Not to mention that if it does fail those who have been pounding on the diplomacy pulpit for the last 7+ years as if it's some amazingly untried solution to all our ills will finally get a does of reality and have a cork stuffed in them in the process.

I could be wrong though. Either way. It's win-win from my pov.

Exactly, what would you do differently?

I've already explained it clearly afaik. I'm more than willing to give the diplomacy route a go on the small chance it might succeed, though I don't think it's quite as easy as that. Politics has never been that simple except in the mind of idealists who refuse to accept that machinations exist in the minds of men.

Yea because Clinton's diplomacy really worked well with North Korea.

😕

Which is one of many examples and reasons that I don't think the grand solution is as simple as chanting diplomacy. Nor will diplomacy work with Iran or Syria. I'm an advocate of the Teddy Roosevelt school. Walk softly but carry a big stick.

And don't be afraid to use that stick when it's necessary either. Defeats the purpose of carrying it in the first place.

Ahhh, "necessary."

That word seems to have a lot of meanings these days.

It may be the most important yet ill-defined word in politics.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Skoorb
How pathetic the US' foreign policy that a practical, common-sense approach to foreign policy--basically a textbook defintion, comes as a surprise to people and they think it's ridiculous.

His approach mirrors that of a cop who pulls somebody over for speeding and leaves his pistol in unless it's needed. These days the cops just walk around with the gun out looking for an excuse to use it and flex muscle.

Yet history has proven that such diplomacy has not worked with such nations like Iran and North Korea.

Have an example or two?

😕

Iran and North Korea

😀

When I read your post I inserted a phantom sentence in there, nvm.